LEAD SECTION:
- Yes, there is an introductory sentence defining water politics and what it could be summarized as.
- Yes, a brief description of the article's outline is included.
- No, all the information in the lead seems to be directly about water politics, or related to water conflicts worldwide.
- The lead is detailed, but water politics is a very complex, ongoing and changing issue.
CONTENT:
-Yes, the content of the article is extensive, detailed, and relevant.
- Yes, the content is up to date, such as with the ongoing situation with water privatization in CDMX.
-All the information has to do with summarizing water politics worldwide and describing many different examples/case studies of water politics across the world. I think all the information is relevant.
- It is very detailed, but this is a topic that necessitates attention to detail.
TONE AND BALANCE:
- The article is neutral, and while there are some instances of an opinion, such as saying that a public policy was successful or not, these statements are backed up by citations.
- I can see no heavily biased claims.
- There seems to be sufficient information relating each section included, so I would not say that there are over or underrepresented viewpoints.
- There aren't minority perspectives in this article.
SOURCES:
- I checked most of the important pieces of information, and they are backed up by credible sources of information, like journals or reports.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
- I think this article is great, very informative, and gives the reader an impressive sense of knowledge about the concept of water politics and how it has been viewed, utilized, and impacted across history and time. The article is strong in providing as many case studies as possible, big and small, and most of the information seems to reference credible sources of information. Nothing seems biased and it is very informative in corroborating the state of water use and water systems in the world today.
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION:
- Yes, there is an introductory sentence defining water politics and what it could be summarized as.
- Yes, a brief description of the article's outline is included.
- No, all the information in the lead seems to be directly about water politics, or related to water conflicts worldwide.
- The lead is detailed, but water politics is a very complex, ongoing and changing issue.
CONTENT:
-Yes, the content of the article is extensive, detailed, and relevant.
- Yes, the content is up to date, such as with the ongoing situation with water privatization in CDMX.
-All the information has to do with summarizing water politics worldwide and describing many different examples/case studies of water politics across the world. I think all the information is relevant.
- It is very detailed, but this is a topic that necessitates attention to detail.
TONE AND BALANCE:
- The article is neutral, and while there are some instances of an opinion, such as saying that a public policy was successful or not, these statements are backed up by citations.
- I can see no heavily biased claims.
- There seems to be sufficient information relating each section included, so I would not say that there are over or underrepresented viewpoints.
- There aren't minority perspectives in this article.
SOURCES:
- I checked most of the important pieces of information, and they are backed up by credible sources of information, like journals or reports.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
- I think this article is great, very informative, and gives the reader an impressive sense of knowledge about the concept of water politics and how it has been viewed, utilized, and impacted across history and time. The article is strong in providing as many case studies as possible, big and small, and most of the information seems to reference credible sources of information. Nothing seems biased and it is very informative in corroborating the state of water use and water systems in the world today.
LEAD SECTION:
- Yes, there is an introductory sentence defining water politics and what it could be summarized as.
- Yes, a brief description of the article's outline is included.
- No, all the information in the lead seems to be directly about water politics, or related to water conflicts worldwide.
- The lead is detailed, but water politics is a very complex, ongoing and changing issue.
CONTENT:
-Yes, the content of the article is extensive, detailed, and relevant.
- Yes, the content is up to date, such as with the ongoing situation with water privatization in CDMX.
-All the information has to do with summarizing water politics worldwide and describing many different examples/case studies of water politics across the world. I think all the information is relevant.
- It is very detailed, but this is a topic that necessitates attention to detail.
TONE AND BALANCE:
- The article is neutral, and while there are some instances of an opinion, such as saying that a public policy was successful or not, these statements are backed up by citations.
- I can see no heavily biased claims.
- There seems to be sufficient information relating each section included, so I would not say that there are over or underrepresented viewpoints.
- There aren't minority perspectives in this article.
SOURCES:
- I checked most of the important pieces of information, and they are backed up by credible sources of information, like journals or reports.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
- I think this article is great, very informative, and gives the reader an impressive sense of knowledge about the concept of water politics and how it has been viewed, utilized, and impacted across history and time. The article is strong in providing as many case studies as possible, big and small, and most of the information seems to reference credible sources of information. Nothing seems biased and it is very informative in corroborating the state of water use and water systems in the world today.
| Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION:
- Yes, there is an introductory sentence defining water politics and what it could be summarized as.
- Yes, a brief description of the article's outline is included.
- No, all the information in the lead seems to be directly about water politics, or related to water conflicts worldwide.
- The lead is detailed, but water politics is a very complex, ongoing and changing issue.
CONTENT:
-Yes, the content of the article is extensive, detailed, and relevant.
- Yes, the content is up to date, such as with the ongoing situation with water privatization in CDMX.
-All the information has to do with summarizing water politics worldwide and describing many different examples/case studies of water politics across the world. I think all the information is relevant.
- It is very detailed, but this is a topic that necessitates attention to detail.
TONE AND BALANCE:
- The article is neutral, and while there are some instances of an opinion, such as saying that a public policy was successful or not, these statements are backed up by citations.
- I can see no heavily biased claims.
- There seems to be sufficient information relating each section included, so I would not say that there are over or underrepresented viewpoints.
- There aren't minority perspectives in this article.
SOURCES:
- I checked most of the important pieces of information, and they are backed up by credible sources of information, like journals or reports.
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
- I think this article is great, very informative, and gives the reader an impressive sense of knowledge about the concept of water politics and how it has been viewed, utilized, and impacted across history and time. The article is strong in providing as many case studies as possible, big and small, and most of the information seems to reference credible sources of information. Nothing seems biased and it is very informative in corroborating the state of water use and water systems in the world today.